Talk:Brand New Eyes

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Brick by boring brick[edit]

How to convert it back when (if) it gets annouced as a single by paramore themselves? --NicoX448 (talk) 18:10, 30 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to put it as a single, because Hayley herself said it was their second single, and that they were shooting a video for it. But apparently people don't like the truth. But I did make a page for BBBB.71.94.168.240 (talk) 23:45, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You should only add it as the next single if you can reference it yourself—like, using <ref></ref> tags and putting the URL of the band's website page where they announced it. If they just said it somewhere, we can't properly reference it and it can't be added. That's why it keeps getting removed. See also WP:RS. talkingbirds 01:01, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I put Brick by Boring Brick as a single again, but referenced it. AP.net said on their website that Paramore announced it as the second single. Is this good enough?71.94.168.240 (talk) 07:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work! Yep. Now I have to work out all these damned redirects, I think the page was created in about 5 different names; people have to be patient. Guess it doesn't help when someone dodgily speedily deletes the page for not being by a notable artist, what a crock. Back to work... k.i.a.c (talktome - contribs) 08:34, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its not november 17th, thats the music video. The actual single was released not to long ago. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk • contribs) 18:32 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Genre of the album[edit]

Its alternative rock. Thats it. Not pop punk. Not power pop. Not emo! Alternative rock. Or even rock if that works. Keep it at that. --NicoX448 (talk) 19:07, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I'm going to change it do just alternative rock and remove the "pop punk". --92.3.177.17 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Someone keeps putting emo on the genre. Emo is a style, a kinda fashion statement and steryotype. Not a musical genre, I will keep deleting it if they keep putting it. 71.94.168.240 (talk) 08:29, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It is sourced; WP:RS. And verified. You are clearly violating No Original Research guidelines by reverting and I recommend you do not continue or you will more than likely be blocked. Instead of making unreasonable stances, try providing sources and reach consensus on the matter, or write up a detailed and completely sourced style section; example here. Kiac (talk) 08:39, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Kiac above. Emo is a musical genre. In fact, even the Wikipedia article defines it as "a style of rock music typically characterized by melodic musicianship and expressive, often confessional lyrics." If someone as high up as BBC is calling the album emo (which, we have a source for that, among others), then there's no reason to remove it. talkingbirds 19:49, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Who is 'BBC' to tell us what genre this album is? Just because their 'high up' doesnt give them the right to classify it as 'emo'. Paramore themselves have even said they are alternative rock. Paramore, is the highest you can get when it comes to deciding what the genre is, not 'BBC'. ~NicoX448
Music can have multiple genres. Until Paramore publicly declares that their music does not fit into the emo genre, I do not see why it is a bad thing to keep Emo as a listed genre for brand new eyes. talkingbirds 21:27, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


While reading this I decided to visit the official Paramore website to see which genre they label themselves as ... http://www.paramore.net/bio/ they label themselves as an alternative band.T.tyrael (talk) 22:38, 26 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

→ Please don't get wrapped up in the whole emo debate. It's a worthless waste of time, find something better to do. Your (our?) arguments aren't going to change anything, one of your favourite bands (not just meaning this band) is going to be stuck with a label whether you manage to remove it here or not. I disagree with it too, but I deal with it - we aren't here to pick and choose, we are supposed to cite what is verifiable. On a sidenote, I'd love to see you discredit the BBC to the point where its published opinion is below your own opinion. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:30, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ps. The band's opinion has little relevance to this, at all. It's merely categorising, labelling, not self-referencing. Think about it, it'd be promotional chaos if they referred to themselves as emo, it just would not happen. They have a POV issue and no claim here. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:33, 27 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Singles[edit]

The song Brick by Boring Brick was released a while ago on their myspace. I added it to the page but it got taken off. It's not up for sale but its still a single isn't it? --Ice66Breaker 20:38, 10 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Song writing credit[edit]

As of now it says that all songs were written by Paramore and Rob Cavallo. I've checked both the ASCAP and BMI databases and now of the new song are there yet. Plus Paramore doesn't publish their music through BMI. So I'm going to remove the written by until we get the proper sources, i.e. the album. Zoletres (talk) 00:39, 11 September 2009 (UTC)Zoletres[reply]

when brand new eyes leaked[edit]

brand new eyes didn't leak on Monday 21 of September, it leaked the Friday before (18th September) because this was the day of the Hot Topic listening parties. Alot of fans recored the songs (on their phones, etc) and uploaded them online.

alsoo can someone add the hot topic listening parties to the article, and that Careful (insrumental) leaked in August, and that all copies of Brand New Eyes deluxe edition have sold out in the US and EU [{unsigned|82.36.160.39}}

Leaks are generall non-notable per WP:ALBUM#LEAK. --Madchester (talk) 01:30, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

3rd single?[edit]

Here and here have an acoustic version of Where The Lines Overlap as a separate song to purchase. Isn't that considered a single?--Ice66Breaker 00:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

File:Where The Lines Overlap Acoustic.jpg

Unless it charts, I'm going to say no. One retailer digitally releasing a song doesn't really make it a single. kiac. (talk-contrib) 01:45, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Most likely, the third single will be "The only exception" On the BNE Cd, It says "Featuring Ignorance, Brick By Boring Brick, And The only exception." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk) 02:54, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball, we don't add speculation, we wait for confirmed information that is verifiable. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:46, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I did say most likely didnt I? Im not going to put anything up to its confirmed so chill out. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.98.226.108 (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well now you (and the people likely to add it after reading that) know :) kiac. (talk-contrib) 13:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neutrality of Reviews section?[edit]

There is a message disputing the neutrality of the reviews section. I don't see anything in the section that could be considered unneutral and I don't even see a debate over the subject on the talk page.Obamamaniac (talk) 23:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I sent a message to the IP who added it, to explain their edit and help us out, hasn't replied. I think it's pretty safe to remove it if you want, it could do with some work though. kiac. (talk-contrib) 12:49, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Only Exception[edit]

Hayley said it was the next single and that it may start in another country but would end up over here. [1]. So maybe removing the whole UK and Ireland thing would be more reliable. Terminus777 (talk) 21:25, 15 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why did this page get deleted, it is the next single, and the video is coming out tomorrow, so maybe we should put another page together? Terminus777 (talk) 02:56, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Only Exception. That is why - there's many reasons stated right there. You may wish to write one up in a sandbox (Click me), and then we can decide together whether or not to recreate the page. It's going to need to be sourced a lot better, otherwise it's just going to keep failing notability again until (or if) it charts. kiac. (talk-contrib) 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ http://www.paramore.net/blog/net-photo-stream-single-stuff-and-more/

Use of [sic]?[edit]

I don't understand the use of [sic] in the following sentence: "The album's cover, an image of a butterfly divided from its wings, inspired the line 'The angles [sic] were all wrong / Now she's ripping wings off of butterflies'."

"Angles" isn't spelled incorrectly and there doesn't seem to be any error there (i.e. confusion with the word "angels"). It's deliberately sung as "angles" in the song. Mr. Corgi (talk) 10:27, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently there was some confusion about it in the past, we used to spell it "angels", then someone changed it to "angles [sic?]" since he apparently wasn't sure about the quote, which was then changed to {{sic}}, and afterwards there was some more editwarring about it until it ended up in the current state, including the hidden comment.
So it's good that you started a talk page section about it, with all that prior confusion. Don't know the song myself, but I agree with you, majority of google hits also write "angles", and "angels" would make far less sense here, too. So I've changed it.
Thanks, Amalthea 10:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Stylization[edit]

MOS:TM states that " it is acceptable to use decorative characters the first time the trademark appears, but thereafter, an alternative that follows the standard rules of punctuation should be used". Examples here, here, here, and here. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 07:40, 19 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disingenuous editing by User:P4.UK[edit]

User:P4.UK, rather than discuss edits made on this page, disingenuously reverted my edits, marking his/her edit as minor and not providing an edit summary. P4.UK, please bring your concerns to this talk page. You have provided no valid rationale for reverting my edits. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 22:08, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I removed part of it again. If people want to include sales figures, you need a source. Bear in mind that certifications do not reflect sales in the US and many other countries. For what it's worth, "undo" automatically marks the edit as minor. That doesn't excuse the lack of edit summary.—Kww(talk) 23:39, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for not being clear. The statistics were not my edits. I was referring to the re-adding of irrelevant (IMO) tour information. --TorriTorri(Talk to me!) 20:28, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since there have been no objections, I've gone ahead and removed the irrelevant tour information. --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 21:08, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the bands most successful album[edit]

whoever wrote that is wrong, well partially wrong, its their highest charting album, but Riot is their biggest selling album, and the success of an album usually refers to its sales, it should be changed to 'their highest charting album to date'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.13.105.96 (talk) 16:42, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Can you provide reliable sources for that? --TorriTorri(talk/contribs) 17:07, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe he/she has, but anyways, can you provide a source to prove that Brand New Eyes is the most succesful album of Paramore? Lxhizy (talk) 22:50, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recorded in Florida[edit]

I'll look for the specific Youtube Videos, but on brand new eyes' documentary about the making of the record they said they were recording in South Florida. Could someone verify or prove this wrong? it's not really important to the article but I would like clarification. Signed, Alex Fraley — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.91.82.30 (talk) 18:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brand New Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:36, 28 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Brand New Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 18:59, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 7 external links on Brand New Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Brand New Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:50, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Brand New Eyes. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:46, 24 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brand_New_Eyes&oldid=1211160060"